Animal Welfare: Poultry Transport

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will use the option under the European Union poultry transport regulations to extend the eight-hour rule to 12 hours.

Lord Rooker: Council Regulation 1/2005, on the welfare of vertebrate animals during transport, has no derogation available specifically for poultry. Member states may derogate from vehicle inspection and approval of road vehicles used for journeys of over eight hours, permitting travel up to 12 hours before inspection.
	However, poultry are normally transported in containers and we do not consider that vehicles simply carrying containers in which animals are transported require inspection and approval. Therefore, no additional requirements apply to poultry transport in containers for journeys over eight hours and up to 12 hours.

Foot and Mouth Disease

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether testing of second samples from sheep slaughtered in the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak was carried out; if so, how many sheep were involved; what was the outcome; and what was the regional variance.

Lord Rooker: Work conducted by the Institute for Animal Health and funded by Defra was recently published in the Veterinary Record (2006) 159, 373-78. It compared original laboratory results of virological samples collected from confirmed cases of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) in the UK in 2001 with results obtained by retrospective analysis using real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The analysis included samples taken from sheep and other livestock, and demonstrated that the PCR technique could provide reliable results more quickly than previously used conventional tests.
	In 23 per cent (390 of 1730) of infected premises from which samples were received, no evidence of FMD virus, antibody or nucleic acid was found. This suggests that the incidence of FMD during the outbreak may have been over-reported. The proportion of test negative cases rises to 38 per cent for premises where only sheep were investigated, confirming the difficulty of diagnosing FMD in this species. A copy of this paper will be placed in the Library of the House.
	Based on the original laboratory results, similar conclusions regarding the proportion of animals that could be confirmed as infected by laboratory tests, including considerable differences between these proportions across disease control centres, was previously reported in paragraphs 3.73 to 3.77 of the National Audit Office report, The 2001 Outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease (HC 939 2001-2002, ISBN: 0102916454). This report was published on 21 June 2002 and is available from the National Audit Office website: www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/chronindex.asp?type=vfm.

Football: Transfer Investigations

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What role HM Revenue and Customs has in ongoing investigations into alleged wrongdoing by football club managements and agents in the buying and selling of players; and what action they have taken, or are considering.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: HM Revenue and Customs is concerned to ensure that the tax liabilities of individuals and organisations involved in football and other businesses are correctly assessed. The department is statutorily debarred from disclosing information relating to people's tax affairs.

Waterways: Finances

Lord Whitty: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What cuts have been made to the grant allocations for 2006—07 to British Waterways and the Environment Agency for navigation and waterways as a result of competing demands on the finances of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; what is their assessment of the likely effect of those cuts; and whether they will be carried forward to future years.

Lord Rooker: The British Waterways grant allocation for 2006-07 was confirmed as £59.429 million. A budget reduction of £3.9 million was applied in-year. Defra is working closely with British Waterways to consider further the impact of the cuts and options for managing the shortfall.
	The Environment Agency's (EA) total resource budget in 2006-07 was confirmed as £567 million following allocations issued in April 2006. A budget reduction of £23.7 million was applied in-year.The EA's board has decided to maintain the levelof spending on its navigation capital workstowards addressing the existing arrears on its built assets. However, the EA has made a reduction of £0.5 million in its navigation operating budget for 2006-07. In making this reduction the EA has sought to minimise the impact on front-line service delivery.
	As a matter of good financial management, Defra keeps its budgets and spending under regular review and challenge, and adjusts them as new pressures and demands arise. Further funding pressures can be foreseen for the next financial year and Defra will be reviewing the 2007-08 budgetary position with its agencies and non-departmental public bodies over the autumn as part of a Defra-wide review of spending plans.